View Full Version : Not all rookie cards are.
Archive
06-15-2005, 01:46 PM
Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>For example Orator Jim O'Rourke played ball since he was 21 years old, but his first card shows him in his mid-thirties. Can this reasonably be thought of as his rookie card?<br /><br />Certainly he was not a rookie. Heck, he got the first hit ever in the National League more than a decade prior to the issuance of his "rookie card". Where do you draw the line, or do you?
Archive
06-15-2005, 01:52 PM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Gil - You don't have to go back into ancient times.<br /><br />Stan Musial collected his first hit in the Major Leagues at least 5 years prior to being shown on ANY card...<br /><br />and about 7 years before the 1948 cards that were distributed Nationally and are widely considered to be his "rookie" cards.<br /><br />Sucks... but what can we do about it???
Archive
06-15-2005, 04:15 PM
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>With no nationally-distributed cards from 62-69 and 82-86, look at the 1969-70 and 1986-87 sets. You could field a HOF all star team from each of them on rookies alone. I like 69-70: Alcindor at center, Monroe and Frazier in the backcourt, Hawkins and Havlicek at forward. Or Hayes or Reed or Thurmond at center, DeBusschere and Bradley at forwards, Bing and Goodrich or Love and Walker at guards. <br /><br />
Archive
06-15-2005, 07:50 PM
Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>I have a rookie card of Bill Durnan that came out a year after he quit playing/. HOFer, too.
Archive
06-16-2005, 04:50 AM
Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>That is a very interesting question to me, Hal. Unfortunately this venue does not support a thorough response, so I will attempt a clear, brief response.<br /><br />Sucks... but what can we do about it???<br /><br />In fact we can do nothing about it. <br /><br />My view of your collection appears to differ from yours, Hal; and I suspect that many persons who view your collection bring their own orientation and focus to bear on what you have assembled. What I would do about it is mention it in the descriptive narrative which you include with some cards.<br /><br />Specifically, you have a collection of rookie cards which contains a player in his 15th (or so) year of playing. It is the first card issued for the player. This is an interesting anecdote. By some definitions the first card issued is a rookie card even if the player is in his fifteenth year.<br /><br />I would include player specific, baseball history, card rarity, and other potentially interesting information regarding each card, where applicable. But these recommendations may solely reflect my view of your collection. <br /><br />You have met with considerable success with your presentation, as identified by the responses which you have realized to date. Some think "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Archive
06-17-2005, 05:56 AM
Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>But the real question is not the lack of cards showing actual rookies, but the relative ignoring of cards which show the actual rookies. The most obvious example of this is Mantle's true rookie card and the earliest Topps example.<br /><br />If there is a bubble to burst in this hobby Id imagine that mislabeled rookie cards will be the first to go.<br /><br />Comments?